MrPanzerGeneral wrote:Brits are in a position of power.....The RN & the RAF could wipe the present day Argentinian Air Force & Navy offa the map, anytime, if they ever wanted to, offensively OR defensively ( with one hand tied behind their backs even.... I hazard....)... and the B.A is then always on the ground Argentina can't protect, nor project, it's own landward boundaries at present, let alone do it across some water.... all bluff... but come what may...we'll be willing to teach them a lesson again Brazil likewise...

Unfortunately, this just isn't true. Britain has spent the last century building condominiums for winos instead of renewing the Fleet.

The RAF is still formidable on its home turf, but it can't project overseas. There aren't any overseas bases left. Nowadays, when the RAF goes abroad, it has to couch-surf on American bases. Sad, but true. The Americans sure as hell aren't going to help with a new Falklands conflict. They have more to gain with Pan-American posturing than with helping out an old ally.

The Fleet whose pennants so proudly flew over so many harbours and so many battles has gone to the great drydock in the sky. Nelson and Beatty and Somerville are rolling over in their graves. Apparently there's plenty of coin in the Exchequer's Office to provide sex changes to Johnny Rotten look-alikes, but nothing to build a few new capital ships. The Fleet that once ruled the planet would be hard-pressed to put together a destroyer screen for a Channel crossing today.

Trust me, I wish it wasn't true, but an honest assessment of the facts is that the RN would be in no shape to deliver a significant fighting force to the Falklands today. Even in 1982 it was embarrassingly difficult to get things under way, and that was before the last carriers were put to pasture.

The only hope is to appeal to public opinion. And don't discount the public opinion of Argentinians -- it is a democracy, and if the people could be educated about how bogus their claims are, I think they could be shamed into dropping them.

For instance, take that American pirate that was shipwrecked on the islands in 1820 and claimed them for Argentina -- Jarrett or Jabba or some shitty name like that. Okay, this loser crashes his ship, begs the British for help, and then has the ingratitude to inform them that he is taking over their colony. Just put this is perspective. A drunken lout crashes his car into the telephone pole on your front yard, crawls out, vomits on your lawn, and begs for assistance. You come outside, full of humanitarian concern, wrap a blanket over him to keep him from shock, at which point he hands you a letter informing you that he is seizing ownership of your house. What a subhuman piece of fecal matter!

Once you make people understand how morally untenable are the underpinnings of the Argentine claim, you're halfway to winning. It's always dicey. You have to balance Bulwer-Lytton's "the pen is mightier than the sword" against Sir Roger Fenwick's "but at any given moment the sword speaks louder and clearer." Still, this is the Internet Age, and although shooting wars continue to rage, I'm cautiously optimistic that the pen is gaining ground.

BigBallinStalin wrote:I'm thinking about how the US could be factored into this, but if the Executive and/or key congress people have no strong personal ties with any English politician, then I don't see why the US would really care who controlled the Malvinas--as long as oil is being produced and traded.

Oh, "NATO obligations" might get the US involved. That possibility probably explains why ARG has yet to invade Malvinas.

Largely the US has stayed un-involved ever since Thatcher asked Reagan what he would do if American sovereign territory got invaded by a foreign dictatorial power.